Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

My wife's mother has a beautiful restored Chickering grand from the 30's, but I doubt this would have influenced me to buy a new, rebranded Chickering made somewhere in Asia by a company unrelated to the original maker. In my recent piano shopping, I was far more motivated by quality. Indeed, I was seriously considering Hailun, a brand introduced very recently. My decision to buy a used Schimmel was partially motivated by brand name, but only to the extent that I knew that Schimmel had a good reputation for quality. (Plus, I just liked how it played.) Of course the name on the fallboard can add or subtract from a piano's value. Yamaha and Kawai are arguably equivalent, but the Yamaha name can add thousands to the price tag. But doesn't that become meaningless if a piano brand dies and is revived by an unrelated company? Maybe this is why Baldwin failed with their revived Chickering. That and the poor quality of their piano. Maybe the OP would be better served putting the money into making a better quality piano and invent a new brand name.

Actually if someone could do for Chickering what Samick is doing for Knabe you could probably make a go of it. Baldwin isn't ever going to do that because they want Baldwin to be their upper line. Baldwin never seemed to fit in the mix with Steinway, Mason and Hamlin, Knabe, and Chickering. It seemed to be more of an entity unto itself. However, I still think Baldwin would want a pretty penny to release that name.

I've never understood how Mason & Hamlin can still claim, with a straight face, to be Made in the USA, given that their iron plates, piano actions, and the cases for their uprights are not.

Just like Charles Walter has the audacity to claim that their instruments are made in the USA because they use Renner actions and Kluge keys.

Both M&H and CW pianos are assembled in the USA. As long as QUALITY standards are maintained, who really cares where some of the parts come from. Well - apparently YOU care !!

Carey,

Not that anyone is taking this thread seriously, but I purposely didn’t mention quality or country of origin. Both are irrelevant to my statement. I was specifically referring to another posters use of the term “Made in the USA” and what that means, especially as it pertains to truth in advertising, which is, more or less, the point of this thread.

While you may not appreciate the difference between “assembled” and “made” in USA, the distinction is relevant. Folks who have lost jobs to offshore labor know the difference and you can bet that because of the political implications and their, er, nod to patriotism neither Walter nor Mason are ever going to use the term “assembled” in USA. They are very aware of the difference and "care" about the implications to their marketing.

Steinway piano is probably the closest to what would be considered "Made in the USA" without too many qualifications. Walter would be distant second. And Mason in my opinion would be limping in at third. All three are fairly liberal with their "Made in USA" claims.

" . . . The Standard For Unqualified Made In USA Claims:What is the standard for a product to be called Made in USA without qualification?

For a product to be called Made in USA, or claimed to be of domestic origin without qualifications or limits on the claim, the product must be "all or virtually all" made in the U.S. The term "United States," as referred to in the Enforcement Policy Statement, includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories and possessions.

What does "all or virtually all" mean?"All or virtually all" means that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin. That is, the product should contain no — or negligible — foreign content.

What substantiation is required for a Made in USA claim?When a manufacturer or marketer makes an unqualified claim that a product is Made in USA, it should have — and rely on — a "reasonable basis" to support the claim at the time it is made. This means a manufacturer or marketer needs competent and reliable evidence to back up the claim that its product is "all or virtually all" made in the U.S.

What factors does the Commission consider to determine whether a product is "all or virtually all" made in the U.S.?The product’s final assembly or processing must take place in the U.S. The Commission then considers other factors, including how much of the product’s total manufacturing costs can be assigned to U.S. parts and processing, and how far removed any foreign content is from the finished product. In some instances, only a small portion of the total manufacturing costs are attributable to foreign processing, but that processing represents a significant amount of the product’s overall processing. The same could be true for some foreign parts. In these cases, the foreign content (processing or parts) is more than negligible, and, as a result, unqualified claims are inappropriate.

Example: A company produces propane barbecue grills at a plant in Nevada. The product’s major components include the gas valve, burner and aluminum housing, each of which is made in the U.S. The grill’s knobs and tubing are imported from Mexico. An unqualified Made in USA claim is not likely to be deceptive because the knobs and tubing make up a negligible portion of the product’s total manufacturing costs and are insignificant parts of the final product.

Example: A table lamp is assembled in the U.S. from American-made brass, an American-made Tiffany-style lampshade, and an imported base. The base accounts for a small percent of the total cost of making the lamp. An unqualified Made in USA claim is deceptive for two reasons: The base is not far enough removed in the manufacturing process from the finished product to be of little consequence and it is a significant part of the final product. . ."

I've never understood how Mason & Hamlin can still claim, with a straight face, to be Made in the USA, given that their iron plates, piano actions, and the cases for their uprights are not.

Just like Charles Walter has the audacity to claim that their instruments are made in the USA because they use Renner actions and Kluge keys.

Both M&H and CW pianos are assembled in the USA. As long as QUALITY standards are maintained, who really cares where some of the parts come from. Well - apparently YOU care !!

Carey,

Not that anyone is taking this thread seriously, but I purposely didn’t mention quality or country of origin. Both are irrelevant to my statement. I was specifically referring to another posters use of the term “Made in the USA” and what that means, especially as it pertains to truth in advertising, which is, more or less, the point of this thread.

While you may not appreciate the difference between “assembled” and “made” in America, the distinction is relevant. Folks who have lost jobs to offshore labor know the difference and you can bet that because of the political implications and their, er, nod to patriotism neither Walter nor Mason are ever going to use the term “assembled” in America. They are very aware of the difference and "care" about the implications to their marketing.

Steinway piano is probably the closest to what would be considered "Made in the USA" without too many qualifications. Walter would be distant second. And Mason in my opinion would be limping in at third. All three are fairly liberal with their "Made in America" claims.

" . . . The Standard For Unqualified Made In USA Claims:What is the standard for a product to be called Made in USA without qualification?

For a product to be called Made in USA, or claimed to be of domestic origin without qualifications or limits on the claim, the product must be "all or virtually all" made in the U.S. The term "United States," as referred to in the Enforcement Policy Statement, includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories and possessions.

What does "all or virtually all" mean?"All or virtually all" means that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin. That is, the product should contain no — or negligible — foreign content.

What substantiation is required for a Made in USA claim?When a manufacturer or marketer makes an unqualified claim that a product is Made in USA, it should have — and rely on — a "reasonable basis" to support the claim at the time it is made. This means a manufacturer or marketer needs competent and reliable evidence to back up the claim that its product is "all or virtually all" made in the U.S.

What factors does the Commission consider to determine whether a product is "all or virtually all" made in the U.S.?The product’s final assembly or processing must take place in the U.S. The Commission then considers other factors, including how much of the product’s total manufacturing costs can be assigned to U.S. parts and processing, and how far removed any foreign content is from the finished product. In some instances, only a small portion of the total manufacturing costs are attributable to foreign processing, but that processing represents a significant amount of the product’s overall processing. The same could be true for some foreign parts. In these cases, the foreign content (processing or parts) is more than negligible, and, as a result, unqualified claims are inappropriate.

Example: A company produces propane barbecue grills at a plant in Nevada. The product’s major components include the gas valve, burner and aluminum housing, each of which is made in the U.S. The grill’s knobs and tubing are imported from Mexico. An unqualified Made in USA claim is not likely to be deceptive because the knobs and tubing make up a negligible portion of the product’s total manufacturing costs and are insignificant parts of the final product.

Example: A table lamp is assembled in the U.S. from American-made brass, an American-made Tiffany-style lampshade, and an imported base. The base accounts for a small percent of the total cost of making the lamp. An unqualified Made in USA claim is deceptive for two reasons: The base is not far enough removed in the manufacturing process from the finished product to be of little consequence and it is a significant part of the final product. . ."

What is taken seriously is that the Chickering or Wurlitzer from Baldwin never claimed to be made in the USA. It is the same with the Boston and Essex, though those aren't stencils.

I assume that Genesis will be incorprated in the USA and thus would be an American Company. The pianos could be produced anywhere but could not be labeled made in the USA. Are they American pianos, however? It gets us to two interesting problems of semantics.

If a house is constructed of Canadian pine and hardware and erected in Cincinnati, is it built in the USA? Is it made in the USA? It certainly is made in America. You add an HVAC system built in Mexico and the house is still made in America. "Built" and "Made" cause big problems. The usage of USA and America also cause problems. My Canadian friends often point this out to me.

Honda and others proudly claim to be built in the USA. They seem to be careful to not claim to be made in the USA, but the majority of the parts are made in America.

When Genesis introduced the extremely successful model H-52, they decided to continue with the new Chickering. They bought the trademark from Baldwin, er, Gibson, and built a new plant in Mexico for the total construction of the pianos using only lumber from Canada. I was marketed as Made in America. Citizens of the US cried foul, while the Canadians and Mexicans cheered. It might be in the courts for years.

Buoyed by success, Genesis introduce the Leszt, by Lester. It ultimately led to the demise of the once great Genesis Piano Company. Edith wept and even Archie had to comfort her.

Actually if someone could do for Chickering what Samick is doing for Knabe you could probably make a go of it. Baldwin isn't ever going to do that because they want Baldwin to be their upper line. Baldwin never seemed to fit in the mix with Steinway, Mason and Hamlin, Knabe, and Chickering. It seemed to be more of an entity unto itself. However, I still think Baldwin would want a pretty penny to release that name.

I assume that Genesis will be incorprated in the USA and thus would be an American Company. The pianos could be produced anywhere but could not be labeled made in the USA. Are they American pianos, however? It gets us to two interesting problems of semantics.

Apple products read "Designed by Apple in California". Perhaps Genesis could adopt that standard as well.

Baldwin never seemed to fit in the mix with Steinway, Mason and Hamlin, Knabe, and Chickering. It seemed to be more of an entity unto itself. However, I still think Baldwin would want a pretty penny to release that name.

Back in the 70's when I was a piano major/teacher, most colleges and universities I came in contact with had either a Baldwin or Steinway concert grand on their recital hall stages. Other brands (usually older instruments) were often found in teaching studios - but Steinway and Baldwin were clearly the instruments of choice - and folks had a strong preference for one or the other. Baldwin may have been an entity unto itself - but their best instruments were clearly competitive, and were considered an affordable alternative to Steinway. Of course, that was then - and things change.

I couldn't agree more. Baldwin has always made a very fine piano. According to Larry Fines piano book, early editions, Baldwin made an incredible range of products that went from among the best in the world to among the worst. The way I understand it, they even sued Larry because of his reviews of their products. Most people would agree that Artist Grands and Institutional uprights made by Baldwin were very fine instruments. I just think it's funny how Baldwins have always seemed to be separated from other fine pianos. YOu always hear about Steinway and Mason and Hamlin, often mentioned with these names are Knabe and Chidkering - and then there's Baldwin. In the Sesame Street song, "One of these things just doesn't belong here" that would be Baldwin. Not sure why that is. Of course I'm talking about vintage instruments of 20+ years ago, not the modern instruments of today.

I'm not so sure. The reason Baldwin failed is because of the perceived value of the brand name "Wurlitzer" and "Chickering". They weren't worth the price tag on the piano, so nobody bought them.

On what do you base that statement? I don't think it has any validity. There were far more compelling issue that lead to Baldwin's failure.

Derulux,

Please explain this statement which is ambigious. It wasn't until Steve's response that I realized it has two different interpretations. What did you mean by perceived value? Was it that these "names" were lesser than the Baldwin name itself, or that the names were on par with Baldwin, but didn't live up to the expectation?

The Chickering grands made by Baldwin in the early 80's - early 90's were Baldwins with the Chickering name on the fall board... very nice pianos. They had the accujust hitch pins too (specific Baldwin DNA).

And, I've read that Condoleezza Rice owns a Chickering.

Rick

_________________________
Piano enthusiast and amateur musician: "Treat others the way you would like to be treated". Yamaha C7. YouTube Channel

I'm not so sure. The reason Baldwin failed is because of the perceived value of the brand name "Wurlitzer" and "Chickering". They weren't worth the price tag on the piano, so nobody bought them.

On what do you base that statement? I don't think it has any validity. There were far more compelling issue that lead to Baldwin's failure.

The fact that the consumer base did not purchase the product, which you're right, could indicate more than one thing. But, I am always willing to listen to a more compelling argument.. care to add more?

Originally Posted By: MinnesotaMarty

Derulux,

Please explain this statement which is ambigious. It wasn't until Steve's response that I realized it has two different interpretations. What did you mean by perceived value? Was it that these "names" were lesser than the Baldwin name itself, or that the names were on par with Baldwin, but didn't live up to the expectation?

Unfortunately, I've less details than I would like to delve into a micro analysis of why the brands failed. So I am left only to look at the macro. One of the biggest contributors to a failed brand in a luxury market is the market-perceived value of that brand versus the price tag on the product and the other options available to the consumer within that market.

Hoping if Steve wants to get into micro analysis that he provides the details.. because I openly admit I don't have 'em. I would definitely like to hear more from him, though, other than, "Your point isn't valid."

Edited by Derulux (08/08/1211:16 AM)

_________________________
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.

I'm not so sure of the timeline of your ranking. In the early 20th century the big-name American pianos were Steinway, Chickering, and Knabe.

Midway in the century, the usual names mentioned were Steinway, Baldwin and Mason. Though still respected, Chickering and Knabe no longer were at the forefront. During the late 1980's and and 90's it was in flux again.

Charles Walter emerged and Mason soared. Steinway slipped a bit, but was still the name which was held in highest regard. It was also during this time that the piano community was learning of the great European imports and Yamaha and Kawai finally gained merited respect.

The internet has totally changed our awareness of what is available and how we obtain information. "Word of mouth" is no longer from the mouth, but from the (non-piano) keyboard. With this, a greater amount of knowledge is available to the first time buyer. But, it can also be very confusing.

Gone is the time when the primary source of information for a recommendation was from respected musicians in the immediate geographical area. Often the quality of a given instrument was assessed as to the regard in which a dealer was held. The concept was that Mr. Such-N-Such was on the school board, active in his church, and leads the local food drive, he must, therefore, sell the best pianos. Now we seem to need to know if the hammers are Renner, who supplied the pinblock, how the soundboard is laminated using wood from trees grown where, etc. Personally, I would like to know the name of the sheep supplying the hammer felt.

The question of who builds the best piano in America has faded into the past. Now it falls within the parameters of the world. All that said, I think that if you would ask a fine, advanced pianist, who is not a self-professed piano nut, if (s)he likes Fazioli, the reply could very well be, "especially with meatballs."

Steve's response was to your very direct statement: "The reason Baldwin failed is because ...." You stated it as definative and all encompassing. Steve pointed out that it is not as simplistic as you portrayed. I totally agree with Steve. If you don't have access to all of the facts, which you admit, don't state your opinion as fact.

I'm not so sure of the timeline of your ranking. In the early 20th century the big-name American pianos were Steinway, Chickering, and Knabe.

Midway in the century, the usual names mentioned were Steinway, Baldwin and Mason. Though still respected, Chickering and Knabe no longer were at the forefront. During the late 1980's and and 90's it was in flux again.

Charles Walter emerged and Mason soared. Steinway slipped a bit, but was still the name which was held in highest regard. It was also during this time that the piano community was learning of the great European imports and Yamaha and Kawai finally gained merited respect.

The internet has totally changed our awareness of what is available and how we obtain information. "Word of mouth" is no longer from the mouth, but from the (non-piano) keyboard. With this, a greater amount of knowledge is available to the first time buyer. But, it can also be very confusing.

Gone is the time when the primary source of information for a recommendation was from respected musicians in the immediate geographical area. Often the quality of a given instrument was assessed as to the regard in which a dealer was held. The concept was that Mr. Such-N-Such was on the school board, active in his church, and leads the local food drive, he must, therefore, sell the best pianos. Now we seem to need to know if the hammers are Renner, who supplied the pinblock, how the soundboard is laminated using wood from trees grown where, etc. Personally, I would like to know the name of the sheep supplying the hammer felt.

The question of who builds the best piano in America has faded into the past. Now it falls within the parameters of the world. All that said, I think that if you would ask a fine, advanced pianist, who is not a self-professed piano nut, if (s)he likes Fazioli, the reply could very well be, "especially with meatballs."

MinnMart,You are much more detailed and correct. I was speaking in general terms. And, I DO love a good plate of Fazoli with Meatballs.

I'm not so sure. The reason Baldwin failed is because of the perceived value of the brand name "Wurlitzer" and "Chickering". They weren't worth the price tag on the piano, so nobody bought them.

On what do you base that statement? I don't think it has any validity. There were far more compelling issue that lead to Baldwin's failure.

The fact that the consumer base did not purchase the product, which you're right, could indicate more than one thing. But, I am always willing to listen to a more compelling argument.. care to add more?

Unfortunately, I've less details than I would like to delve into a micro analysis of why the brands failed. So I am left only to look at the macro. One of the biggest contributors to a failed brand in a luxury market is the market-perceived value of that brand versus the price tag on the product and the other options available to the consumer within that market.

Hoping if Steve wants to get into micro analysis that he provides the details.. because I openly admit I don't have 'em. I would definitely like to hear more from him, though, other than, "Your point isn't valid."

If you don't have the details, then don't assert your unsupported theories as fact! Applying macro thinking to an individual case is often incorrect. In this case, egregiously so. Baldwin's problems were dominantly poor financial leveraging and debt. The company was mismanaged at the very top by a new CEO that had no background in the piano industry.

Your statement "The fact that the consumer base did not purchase the product, which you're right, could indicate more than one thing." contains a compound statement thst is false. Consumers were purcghasing Baldwin pianos.

Your opinions and beliefs are not facts and are considerably misleading and mis-guided.

Again the fact that "One of the biggest contributors to a failed brand in a luxury market is the market-perceived value of that brand versus the price tag on the product and the other options available to the consumer within that market." has no bearing when discussing a specific entity.